Also: Cryptojacking protection (default) If you want to just block things, that's one course. If you want to block the problems and be part of a movement toward authentic user consent that doesn't leave content creators and publishers in the cold, then we're here.
-
-
Replying to @lukemulks @BrendanEich and
Comparisons, to other browsers and extensions are always going to be there, but we are aiming higher by creating a viable, mainstream-friendly alternative for a free web where creators earn, without the user's privacy invasion being a "cost of doing business."
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @lukemulks @RichFelker and
Something else to mention: ongoing research to automate exception management, protect against bounce trackers, and minimize false positives in blocking. We are working to minimize the burden on users of today's ad/tracker-blockers. https://brave.com/brave-proposes-a-machine-learning-approach-for-ad-blocking/ …https://brave.com/redirection-based-tracking/ …
1 reply 10 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @lukemulks and
Is providing random info to trackers and saturate them with noise a good approach? Just blocking them doesn’t seem to work
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @frr149 @BrendanEich and
Don't load & give fake info to trackers you encounter. Share them p2p with an army of users who will automatically fake view & click them.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RichFelker @frr149 and
You have to load them to share them; these scripts use fingerprinting as well as cookies/equiv. to track users. If you build bots to browser and collect (we do), you'll find it costly to perform ad fraud.
@WhiteOps busted MethBot doing $3-5M day by fooling ad buyers into paying.3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BrendanEich @RichFelker and
MethBot used cloud infra (in at least Texas and Amsterdam), fake pub sites, fake headless browser users. It fooled the anti-fraud pixels/scripts bundled with ads to attempt to prove humans viewed/clicked. Impressive work, big cap-ex -- but fraud take was bigger and made profit.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrendanEich @RichFelker and
https://whiteops.com/methbot has details but (of course) leaves out which ad exchanges were (unintentionally) collaborating with MethBot for a fee. The ad "buy side" is CMOs who have to spend budgets, can blame weather, salespeople, tech on low sales. Fee takers loot this gross spend.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @RichFelker and
Estimates say Google and FB take 90% of gross spend, and almost all incremental spend. Say G takes 60%. If 20% is fraud per
@acfou and uniformly distributed, $80B * .6 * .2 = $9.6B fraud-fees. No one wants this to go away.3 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @BrendanEich @acfou and
Google doesn't care about ad fraud because it makes money. Many ad agencies also don't care because they bill 15% of the ad spend. The company's marketing managers arr paid more (+ more bonus) if they manage large accounts. So it goes on.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
The same way banks didn't care about mortgage fraud.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.